"Should we just do what they do in England?" was the question posed by my colleagues and myself when we discussed our response to the review of civil litigation consultation document.

All civil litigation in England and Wales is conducted in terms of the Civil Procedure Rules (CPR) introduced after an extensive review.

They start by declaring an "overriding objective" of enabling the court to deal with cases "justly", which includes ensuring that the parties are on an equal footing, saving expense, and dealing with cases expeditiously, fairly and in ways that are proportionate.

Amajor client consulted by us for the purposes of our response commented that: "We go to extreme lengths to avoid litigating anywhere - especially in Scotland with its obsession for detail - but when we have to, England is radically better than Scotland. We really like the CPR, the streamlined procedures, and the 'Ronseal' terminology."

The civil justice system in Scotland currently offers little attraction to commercial clients as a forum for resolving their disputes. But why reinvent the wheel when our neighbours have recently conducted a very similar review, which resulted in radical reforms and a new system that has been working successfully for more than 10 years? Do we need to be different?

It's tempting to advocate the wholesale adoption of the CPR, but there are too many inherent differences between our respective legal systems to allow such an approach, and it cannot be ignored that the CPR is not entirely without critics who cite, for example, increased costs and disproportionate disclosure requirements.

The answer therefore is to cherry pick - to reject what has not worked for our neighbours, but to shamelessly embrace their many very good ideas (while of course pretending that that's not really what we're doing).